Victoria should adopt a right-to-cool policy this year. Every tenant should have the right to protect themselves from dangerous indoor heat by using safe portable cooling equipment. But Council should stop short of imposing mandatory indoor temperature standards until it understands what Victoria’s older rental buildings can realistically support.

As an engineer, entrepreneur and project manager, I’ve spent my career solving complex problems by defining the objective, examining the evidence, understanding the risks and choosing practical solutions. Good public policy should follow the same approach.

The objective here is straightforward: protect people from dangerous heat.

The 2021 heat dome demonstrated that excessive indoor temperatures can be deadly. Seniors, people with disabilities, those with chronic illnesses and residents of older apartment buildings are particularly vulnerable. No tenant should be prevented from using a safe portable air conditioner because of an outdated blanket prohibition.

That is where Council should act now.

A tenant who purchases their own portable air conditioner, pays the operating costs and installs it safely should generally be allowed to use it. Landlords should only be able to refuse where there is a legitimate electrical, structural or safety concern supported by professional evidence, while working with tenants to find a reasonable alternative.

The next policy question is very different: should every rental building be required to maintain a maximum indoor temperature?

The difference is not simply technical, it could be substantial financially.

My preliminary planning estimates, based on estimated rental units, uptake percentage and average equipment costs, suggest that allowing tenants to purchase and safely operate their own cooling equipment could involve reasonable city-wide costs. Requiring rental buildings to meet a mandatory indoor temperature standard could potentially cost 10 to 15 times as much, depending on the age of the building, electrical capacity and the upgrades required. These are preliminary planning estimates but they illustrate why Council should clearly distinguish between allowing cooling and requiring every building to achieve a prescribed temperature.

Before introducing mandatory temperature standards, Council should complete a city-wide assessment of Victoria’s rental housing stock to determine what upgrades would actually be required, what they would cost, and how they would affect housing affordability and future rental investment.

That isn’t delaying action. It’s making sure the next step is the right one.

Victoria can protect vulnerable tenants today by guaranteeing the right to use safe portable cooling equipment while gathering the evidence needed before considering broader building performance standards.

This debate is about more than air conditioners. It is about how we make public policy. The best decisions are not driven by ideology or headlines. They are built on evidence, practicality and a willingness to solve problems without creating new ones. That is the standard Victoria should expect from its City Council.